About your Search

20110701
20110731
STATION
CSPAN 19
CSPAN2 13
LANGUAGE
English 32
Search Results 0 to 31 of about 32 (some duplicates have been removed)
improve infrastructure, develop education and encourage development the we are in afghanistan for one overriding reason, to shore our own national security by helping the afghans take control of theirs. that means building up security forces to drive down british combat forces where the afghans themselves able to prevent al qaeda from returning and posing a threat to us and our allies around the world. this is poignant today on a plot executed by al qaeda and extremists with the same perverted ideology as the september 11th attacks. 375 british service men and women have died fighting in afghanistan to strengthen that country and keep britain and britain safe from another 9/11 or 7/7. thousands more including many civilians have risked their lives and hundreds have been injured fighting for the security of our nation. they were called to an international coalition involving 48 countries with a specific you and mandate working at the invitation of a democratically elected government. though there have been many difficult times we should be clear about what has been achieved. in 2009 my
knowing president hamid karzai and i do i know he wouldn't agree to an afghanistan that was miles away from the sort of human rights development he wants to see progress but we have to have a hierarchy and the hierarchy of needs from the u.k.'s point of view is to focus on security and the capacity the afghan government has to secure its own country. other things have to take place behind them. >> mr. john woodcock? >> guaranteeing that this will be ordered, is that right? >> we haveade announcements about chinooks being ordered and we will stick to those announcements. >> mary mccloud. >> peace and stability in afghanistan helped by leaving an entire lting legacy and i welcome the officer -- in school. also agree with me that it is important for education for all especially young girls. >> i do agree. if you want to see a long-term stable afghanistan that canno be possible by excluding half of the population from being educated. if you look right across north africa and the middle east, permanent education of women is not just important for human-rights but also economic developm
security assistance force and u.s. forces afghanistan. thank you for your years of great service to this nation and your willingness to serve once again. let me also extend thanks to your families. support is so essential to yours and the nation's success as is the tradition of the kennedy i would invite each of you to introduce any family members or friends who may be here with you to make your opening remarks. general thurman's nomination as the commander of u.s. forces in korea comes at a time of significant change and simmering change on the korean peninsula. our commitment to peace and stability in the region remains steadfast and alliance with the republic of korea is as strong as ever. the strength of that alliance will be particularly important over the next few years as we are embarked on an ambitious realignment of our forces on the peninsula and need to deal with the unpredictable and aggressive behavior of the north korean regime that continues to follow the destructive path of an international pariah. general thurman experience and positions of leadership and with ma
, um, at the post in washington and abroad and has covered pakistan and afghanistan extensively. so we're really lucky to have both of them tonight. after the ambassador's opening remarks, he and karen will have a conversation before opening it up to q&a with the audience. so, please, join me in welcoming ambassador haqqani and karen deyoung. [applause] >> thank you very much. patricia, for that kind introduction. of course, when i was asked to come here, i thought, you know, nobody's paying any attention to pakistan these days. [laughter] nothing gets said about pakistan in the media, so why not use this forum to be able to communicate and, of course, find an excuse to be on c-span. [laughter] and so, therefore, here i am. it's a pleasure to see secretary mchale in the audience, judith mchale and i have worked together in the last sort of, you know, since her appointment as undersecretary, and public diplomacy, of course, is one of the many challenges we have dealt with at our end. so it's a pleasure seeing you here, and thank you for all the help and cooperation you offered here. of
in the last four years, during the daunting challenges of the worse in iraq and afghanistan have been truly remarkable and the nation owes him our deepest gratitude. it is appropriate at today's hearing also to note the passing last week of former chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, retired arm general john shalikashivili. his personal story is well known, rising from post-world war ii immigrant youth to chairman of the joint chiefs. his example of patriotism, leadership and selfless service to the nation and our armed forces inspired the generation that leads our military today. for those of us who knew him, we treasured his professionalism, his candor, and his deep love for america and our men and women in uniform. general denver mpsey's confirma will help the transition to president obama's new security team which have seen significant changes in the last few months. the next chairman will face demanding challenges, operations in afghanistan and iraq continue to at the same time the fiscal realities that confront the nation will put tremendous pressures on the defense department's bud
and reconstruction in afghanistan. the great majority of which has been channeled through private contractors. we know from experience in bosnia in the 1990's and more recently in iraq that a reduction in troop levels as not mean a drop in contractor activity. in some cases, it is a matter of increase. there has been increase reliance on contractors to fulfill the logistical roles once performed by the military in those instances. eventually, the contractor presence will also decrease as we move support of large-scale off-budget scanned it -- spending to more direct to the afghan government directly. this is why our reconstruction strategy must focus on insuring that afghans can sustain what we have helped build. how many additional schools and health, as we can construct, but also that there are teachers and health care officials to sustain those institutions. whether afghans have the resources and expertise to manage the long-term operation and maintenance of power plants. on a related note, as we encourage more contracting with local afghan firms under the afghan first policy, we must consider
, and taking into account significant gains made in u.s. operations and against al qaeda in afghanistan and pakistan over the past year, counterterrorism efforts in yemen must be a central focus of our national security strategy. that said, our -- closely in line with political, economic and developmental challenges as well. those challenges are those that the united states must work to address as part of a holistic approach to this challenge. first of all, just outlined three. three priorities. first, we need a better understanding of the political opposition and prospects for democratic reform. acting president, the vice president in yemen, as only a small power base in the opposition appears fractured between the so-called joint meeting parties, jmp. and other individuals such as the former commander of the first armored division and check out omar, leader of the powerful fellow. over the weekend elements of the opposition asked the formation of a shadow government to the composition and support, i should say though the -- for those the composition and support for the group remains u
deliberately put us in debt with tax breaks, the wars in iraq and afghanistan. they have borrowed all of the money. grover norquist toll call them -- told all of them to not raise taxes under any reason, host: independent from utah. caller: thank you, c-span. our founding fathers would turn over in their graves if they found out how much money we are putting our children in the dead. but they never wanted the constitution to deal with that. guest: our current levels of debt are sustainable. they are high levels of debt, but as a percentage of gdp, it is a lot lower than greece. it is a lot lower than italy. within the last couple of days, we realize they have serious problems. i do not know if the free market and a particular vision of how high are debt would be relative to gdp. they are huge, relative to the wealth we have it. economies expand over time. we have recessions, we have lifts, and we have declines. over the long term, economies grow. our economy will be much larger 30 years from now than it is today. that does not mean we want fiscal problems or we will be able to balance
savings from winding down the wars in iraq and afghanistan. these are real savings that cbo scores at about $1 trillion. we know that some republicans will quibble over these savings but they have no leg to stand on. but wars are the second biggest policy driver of our deficits after the bush tax cut for the conduct and the worst ads to our debt, to is undeniable that winding down the war's delivers savings. the administration tells us with the wind down, they can't prosecute -- they can count on billions of dollars over the next decade the cbo count $1.67 trillion. we know the republicans agree theythis mstath because included the same settings in the ryan budget that passed the house. they never criticized that accounting and it is hard to see how they could do so now. lastly, senator reid's proposal allows for a joint committee that has the potential to achieve deeper savings down the road. all in all, this is an offer that republicans cannot refuse. all of the cuts in center repots proposal have been supported at one point or another by republicans. if they refuse this offer, i
're at war for 10 years, in afghanistan and iraq at surge levels. we assume we're going to be fighting this war for 10 more years, with over 100,000 troops in afghanistan and oh, gosh, wait, we're going to withdraw our troops in 2014. $1 trillion in savings. i've got a better idea. let's pass a bill to cover the moon with yogurt that will cost $5 trillion today. and then let's pass a bill the next day to cancel that bill. we could save $5 trillion. wait, i've got a better idea. our debt is $14 trillion. let's come up with a new plan to spend $14 trillion, then rescind it the next day and let's save $14 trillion. this stuff is fiscal fantasy. you can't make this stuff up, mr. speaker. suggesting that we're going to be in a war at these levels for 10 more years when everybody knows we've already decided not to do that, that does not get us $1.3 trillion in spending cuts. only in washington can you add up math like that. we need real spending cuts. i yield myself an additional minute to say, this is getting serious,r. speaker. very serious. we can't keep spendg money we just don't have. 4
in interest payments. >> how about $10 billion a month in afghanistan. how about iraq. >> i actually believed it is time to bring our troops home from afghanistan. i actually do want to bring the troops home. >> then tell me under your proposal, if it were to be law -- what would we do about emergency spending? what would we do when we have reached, in that decade, the number of percentages you have laid out, all the way down up to 2021? if floods come and earthquakes come, and hurricanes and fires and other natural disasters, carnatic activity, and the ever looming possibility of something like 9/11? >> disasters happen. you have to be prepared for them. the balanced budget amendment would allow for tax increases if there was a 2/3 supermajority. you would see this country rally behind a need to support and take care of those things if such a disaster happened. >> for your information, there are two counties i represent that still have not received the funding that was promised under emergencies. there are people who just lost their homes in the last four months in this nation, either as a r
about internally. we've got all these young people coming back from iraq and afghanistan; have made incredible sacrifices; have taken on incredible responsibilities. you see some 23-year-old who's leading a platoon in hugely dangerous circumstances, making decisions, operating complex technologies. these are folks who can perform. but, unfortunately, what we're seeing is that a lot of these young veterans have a higher unemployment rate than people who didn't serve. and that makes no sense. so what we'd like to do is potentially combine a tax credit for a company that hires veterans with a campaign to have private companies step up and do the right thing and hire more veterans. and one of the things that we've done is internally in the federal government we have made a huge emphasis on ramping up our outreach to veterans and the hiring of veterans, and this has been a top priority of mine. the notion that these guys who are sacrificing for our freedom and our security end up coming home and not being able to find a job i think is unacceptable. mr. dorsey: mr. president, this ne
be captured, high-value targets that may be captured outside of afghanistan. as director of nctc, you will be integrally involved in deliberations relative to any proposal for a long-term plan on detention and interrogation and my question to you is, are you prepared to give sound advice, number one, that you are going to be asked to give and secondly, if the administration appears to be headed down a road that you don't think is the right direction to go, will you say to this committee now that you are going to express yourself in a very strong manner to help to try to develop the best possible policy for detention and interrogation of high-value targets even though your opinion may be contrary to the folks at the white house who are nominating you today? >> yes, absolutely and if i may, i do make that pledge. i think in my prior position, i had taken a position. in other words i have given advice in an unvarnished, objective independent way as a career government official. i've made known my personal views and sought to move positions based on my objective and independent and nonpol
to advocate for people who are being persecuted because they're christians whether it be in afghanistan, pakistan or egypt. and the two questions that i have, how many connections have there been -- convictions have there been over the last several years, do you have any -- and how many occasions do you know where the american embassy has advocated for these cases? generally, when there's a problem, members go to the embassy, they advocate it. how many times has the american embassy participate and been involved in any different cases? >> thank you very much, mr. wolf. there have been, in the 50 cases i was involved with personally, there were two investigations, neither investigation resulted in any legal process, so there are no convictions, um, resulting as of, as of complaints to the effective kidnappings, forced marriages and forced converses of coptic christian women. to my knowledge, also, and according to my research the u.s. embassy has not advocated on behalf of these women. >> one last thing, mr. chairman. as you have this record, i urge you to send it to leon panetta. our mi
a bloomberg story. the cost of the war in iraq and afghanistan. it this far outpaces anything. just the war costs in the tax cuts alone, what day account for are the debt. the way you get out of this debt is to pile all of this burden on middle income families and senior citizens. they're the most vulnerable. it is just plain wrong. this is outrageous. ..will close with this bi the house of riverses appears to be here. president obama has put a lot on the table. he put some that makes me very uncomfortable. he has gone the extra mile by any objective analysis. we're close to this deadline. these are something that does not recommend a conference bridge a compromise. it was right off a cliff ticket we should not be doing this. we should be finding ways to come together. let's move on. i regret that we are her we do not even know what the you're going to bring to the floor. i've never experienced a thing like this before. i regret that we are here. i thank you very much for being here. i wish your counterpart were here. >> thank you. >> thank y vermuch. how many hearings has this bill receive
infrastructure in afghanistan. the notion that the $90 million more that we need for the cftc because of the deficit is nonsense. they want to turn the sec into a profit center. you have a catch-22. first denied the sec and the cftc adequate funding. they in turn will not be able to deal with the rulemaking requirements that they have. because they have not been able to move as quickly on the rolls, the rules have to be abolished. that is something they have imposed. you want the sec and the cftc to have smart people and good information technology. this does not come from the financial institutions. got the rules,, you m will run.e the other problem we have is i have been disappointed in the appointments from the obama administration. we knew last august that the comptroller of the currency had to be appointed but they only now come up with tom curry. the failure of pointing -- appointing someone to the cftb. a bank manager was brutally rejected. he was a disrespectful person by the republicans and now they will confirm nobody to the cftb. the purpose was to give them independence an
and afghanistan. not a huge amount of money. by the way, when people wonder why -- what's happening to the s.e.c. and the f.t.c. are exhibits a and before. we would have been much further along. i think you should not hold off on it. i got some cost-benefit analysis on infrastructure in afghanistan and some of the other things that they are for. i think it is a reasonable thing to do. as long as the cost includes, of course, the financial crisis of -- and the lost revenue and jobs and turmoil. that's the cost. the cost is the terrible crisis we had. although -- i notice that alan sloan has come out with a thorough analysis that is going to be printed in "fortune" about how much money we made over the intervention, the combination of the tarp and the federal reserve and made about $100 billion for the federal government. >> [inaudible] just as a related question, you talked about the bailout being over. if -- are we really to believe that -- >> i will not comment on any financial institution. you get to be chairman or you're a ranking member and you have more nevertheless but you have got to
down the cost of our military efforts in afghanistan and iraq. last year we spent a little over $150 billion. this year we'll spend a little over $100 billion. and the plan is to soon be down to at least $50 billion in two or three years. so over the ten-year period there'll be about eight years at nearly $50 billion or so spent on the war instead of $150 billion. that's part of thelan that we've been operating on for a long time. $150 billion for the w is not baseline expenditure of the united states. it was never projected to continue at that level, so hopefully we could bring it below $50 billion. maybe we went get to $50 billion. i don't know. but what is the reasonable estimate? i think the house republicans and the president said it would drop to $50 billion, and that would be the baseline out there for the rest of the time. that's $1 trillion. that's $1 trillion. so you take $1 trillion out of the $2.7 trillion, you're down to $1.7 trlion. and another thing that's scored in tt, since that $1 trillion in war costs is scored the way mr. reid scored that, which is phantom money,
dark. paychecks for troops in afghanistan and iraq and based around the world could stop. f.a.a. towers could shut down. so could the f.b.i. and the c.i.a., border crossings could close, safety inspections of food americans eat and cargo that enters our ports could halt. literally every function of governmentould cease. social security checks, payments to our veterans. we've heard that before. there would be no discussion of which operations and personnel were essential. all the payments would very likely stop. some have said we could priorize which bills to pay. even if that wouldn't irreparably damage our nation's reputation and credit in the global economy a the globe at community, which it would, is also a complete fiction. our government won't even be able to cover the bills due on august 3. it will simply run out of money and because we'll be in default and our credit rating trashed, we'll be able to borrow the money not again to keep running, even if we wanted to. that's a picture secretary geithner painted. like i said, it's grim. many of my republican colleagues understand this
of the taliban on women and girls in afghanistan and she has since then focused on women's and girls issues related to the challenges in afghanistan. so it wasn't something that she intended to focus on when she went to the white house in 2001, but certainly the course of history changed all of that, and she has really immersed herself in finding a way to make a difference in women's and girls lives around the world, and she's taken the opportunity to speak all around the world to issues important to her and to the community. >> noriel rodriguez, i noticed at the nurenl palm desert, california that both ross lynn carter and cokie roberts talked about kind of the sisterhood of first ladies and all the first ladies that showed up and barbra bush will be there in grand rapids today. is there an informal sisterhood of some type among first ladies? >> i think there is. it's really a very small club. there atlanta many people who have the opportunity to serve as first lady, and betty ford and ross lynn carter became very close friends. betty ford was very helpful to rozz lynn carter in the trans
on the home of someone serving in a rack or afghanistan. -- in iraq and afghanistan. host: why did they see this as an area that need to be filled? guest: the problem has been wrapped up in the general difficulties. it turns out a lot of homes have gone into -- a lot of people have gone into default of mortgages. some companies are better than others at collecting monthly payments and keeping track of paperwork. the ones have proved not to be so good at it have caught service members in the riptide. we have not gotten your payment, we over charge them. foreclosure. that sort of thing going on. this has been a politically embarrassing process of writing wrongs done against members of the military in active duty. host: gym as white as a deployed serviceman and against paying his mortgage -- jim asked why a deployed servicemen against paying his mortgage? guest: he is not exempt against paying his mortgage. is exempt against being foreclosed on. as it has been explained to me, a service member might be in the field for a week or two and have virtually no contact with the outside work force the
is going to count winding down the war in afghanistan as a substantial part of the savings. that could be worth about $1 trillion over 10 years. meanwhile, john boehner is working on his own deficit- reduction debt limit increase plan. he would take -- that plan would be affected in two stages. the first would be $900 trillion or so deficit reduction package, spending cuts, paired with roughly equal amount in debt limit increase. then he would empower a special committee to find an additional $1.60 trillion to authorize or trigger another increase in the debt ceiling. the problem with this proposal, however, it would require raising the debt ceiling by the requisite $2.40 trillion amount into the stages. that is something the president and democratic leaders after yesterday's said is a nonstarter. they say it would create too much uncertainty for the marketplace and the economy if this process had to be replaced at the beginning of next year or summer of next year. >> the house republicans made their own at last it with a cap and balance plan that did not make it to the senate. the pre
and afghanistan. if before the newspaper announced it was closing, members of the british house of commons held an emergency debate on wednesday to discuss whether a full public inquiry was needed to look into the phone hacking. you're the first hour of that debate with remarks by the british attorney general and the labor spokesman for home affairs. >> we come to the emergency debate on phone hacking at the news o >> the housethe house will obsen the light of interest, i have imposed a seven minute limit on the back bench contributions. it'll take effect after the contributions. it'll depend on early contributions. to open the debate, i call mr. bryan's. in were hacked by the news of the world. >> one family member spoke today. another has been in touch with me and several others. the police are looking at not dust wireless phones of these families but the family of mcca hn.the charge is even longer. this is particularly worrying given the long third trial. scandalously, it also seems it targeted some of those police officers who were at various times in charge of the investigation into the ne
's cuts come from drawing down in afghanistan and in iraq. and while were all like to end these conflicts as soon as we possibly can, and with success, harry reid's saving assuming the cost of the war our endeavor. woman already start to draw down in both of these regions. it's almost like saying that we will save trillions of dollars by promising not to invade canada. it's never going to happen. i can't support any plan that begins with the assumption that we have to raise the debt limit and yet doesn't offer a fundamental restructuring of government spending habits. i won't do it. and while i embrace the principles of cut, cap and balance, the bill simply did not go far enough to fundamentally restructure the way that this city stands the american people's money. and it allowed for an increase in the debt limit, something i simply won't do. i also believe that we must repeal and defund obamnicare as part of any solution to our current debt crisis. by? because obamacare is the largest spending and entitlement program ever passed in our nation's history. and it is widely unpopular with pe
about fraud in afghanistan, iraq, pakistan, and now the congress wants us, after giving away our jobs, not fair trade, free trade agreements -- now they want to go back and give them away with korea. i cannot believe the direction that this country has gone in. we keep talking about corporate tax rates. that is the key word. "rate." they are not paying 35%. they are paying 4%, 6%, 9%, and i am making up the difference. the irs is after a relative of mine who lost their job. they owe them $5,000. karzei and his brother have walked off with billions of dollars and our congress cannot seem to stop it. guest: well, there is a lot there. obviously, a lot of these countries, and it is very disappointing to see fraud and hopefully over time it will go down, i do not want to make any excuses for it because there are no excuses for that activity. a lot of these countries do not have the same developed a rule of law that we have over here. even in our country, there have been instances of fraud and bribery and things like that. there were huge problems in its new jersey and in the past. in illi
month for military operations in afghanistan alone to prop up a corrupt and incoetent karzai government. how about ending wasteful subsidies to big agriculture companies? how about asking billionaire hedge fund managers to pay the same tax rates as their secretaries? the truth is that the best way to deal with our long-term fiscal situation is to grow our economy. that means creating jobs and putting people back to work. the last election i thought was about jobs. we haven't talked about jobs at all since the new republican majority became -- came to power. that means investing in things like education and inastructure and green technology and medical research. that's the kind of economic future the american people deserve. the boehner default plan would take us exactly in the wrong direction and urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to reject it. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from california has 5 1/2 minutes remaining. the gentleman is recognized. mr. dreier: mr. speaker, as i list
the shenandoah valley who gave his life in afghanistan is being buried at arling nonnational cemetery later this afternoon, and i do want to be there, so i appreciate the opportunity to ask questions of the witnesses before i depart. let me start with ms. matsen. have you heard from -- i've heard from these counties as well, expressing their concern about what takes place in the national forest. it's my understanding that not to the same degree we have in the allegheny national forest where 9 % of the mineral rights are owned by private individuals and only 3% by the national forest. but sub-surface rights are primarily not owned there. but in the george washington national forest, it's my understanding from the national forest that 16% of the land, or about 180e,000 acres are owned by private entities in terms of the sub surface mineral rights. so if one were to see in those portions of the national forest, that land would be subject to your regulation, would it not, and not to the forest service's regulations? >> i will look to my expert to confirm, but as far as my understanding is that
-- the senate plan's $1 trillion in savings from the iraq and afghanistan wars are real. that's c.b.o. saying it. not some democrat who's hoping and praying for an easy fix. this completely undercuts the arguments by republicans who have tried to call these savings a gimmick, even though they included them in their own budget and voted for them only a few months ago. if it was knock their budget -- if it was okay in their budget, it's got to be okay in our budget. you can't just change your mind based on whose budget it is. the substance should matter to some extent. plus, since the c.b.o. will only measure the plan's first draft before aofficial plan savings were incorporated into the bill, the final version will achieve even deeper savings when it is filed on the floor. as "politico" reports this morning, "in the battle of budget scores, the senate democratic deficit-reduction bill is the clear winner thus far over an alternative by speaker john boehner." and lastly, senator reid's proposal allows for a joint committee that has the potential to achieve even deeper savings down the road to get
money, a good bit of money. over the entire decade, the cost of afghanistan and iraq wars is about $1.3 trillion. and that is a lot of money. again, that's over ten years, over a decade. this year alone, the deficit is expected to be $1.4 trillion. the deficit this year will be larger than the cost of the iraq and afghanistan wars over ten years. the driving force behind our deficit is not the wars in iraq and afghanistan. it's just not. war costs represent only 4% of total outlays over the last ten years. the total amount of money spent since president obama took office is $8.5 trillion. by the end of his first three years in office, we will have added $5 interest to our gross federal deficit. these are stunning numbers. bush had a widely criticized $450 billion deficit. since president obama has been in ofsz the deficits -- in office the deficit looks like it will be $1.5 trillion. we are borrowing too close to half of what we're spending every single day. in the last few years, discretionary spending, non-defense discretionary spending in the last two years increased 24%. 12% a yea
're putting money in other places like to the war, places like that in afghanistan, to other wars. that is my question. guest: two interesting things your question brings up. when fdr designed so security, he said, we're going to put it on your checks every week so you will see it being taken out and you will note it is there for you. that was very, very important to fdr and the preservation of the social safety net. also, he said, we are going to make sure that every time -- that you know this is something that is solvent, but the money is there in the bank so it is not a welfare program but it should not be means tested. we all know what happens to welfare programs. we all know they go under the knife. he said it had to apply to everyone. that is one of the things they want to attack at this point, too. you may say, well, the wealthy should not because it is in financial trouble. it is not. the minute you make of a welfare program, the death warrant. host: we have heard recruitment efforts will be hurt by any perceived abandonment in the area of medicare by democratic leaders. your thoughts
Search Results 0 to 31 of about 32 (some duplicates have been removed)